Nation: NIXON’S 2

AT the outset of his campaign for the presidency, Richard Nixon adopted an aloof, efficient style that was designed to fulfill a double objective: he wanted to show himself to the nation as a cool, controlled figure, and he wanted to avoid the sort of major mistake that can lose an election. From New Hampshire through the convention and well into the campaign, the tactic has worked well. There have been no irretrievable blunders. Yet Nixon has made some moves that may prove to be mistakes—or that, at least, his opponents can exploit as mistakes. There is no sign, so far, that they are anywhere near important enough to destroy Nixon’s commanding lead, but they are giving Hubert Humphrey his first real opportunity to try to build a cumulative attack on his Republican rival.

The TV Issue. Nixon’s most recent problem is his evasion of a national television debate. That evasion has already begun damaging his image. In refusing to debate, Nixon is heeding the traditional wisdom—that as the front runner he would risk losing more than he could possibly gain. He is also recalling his unhappy experience in 1960. Yet the fact is that Humphrey would be a far less appealing figure on TV than was Jack Kennedy. In addition, Nixon’s opponents can needle him, if he persists in vetoing a debate, by asking what he is afraid of.

Last week Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Everett Dirksen combined to shield Nixon from a TV debate by killing a bill, already passed by the House, that would have cleared the way for the encounter by temporarily suspending FCC equal-time regulations. Dirksen pointed out that Senate Democrats, including Hubert Humphrey, had opposed a similar bill four years ago to permit debates between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater —and had done so for the same tactical reasons. Dirksen might also have noted that when Humphrey was in the lead during contention for the Democratic nomination, he steadfastly refused to tangle with Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy in a debate.

In some desperation, Humphrey even offered to finance an hour’s television debate. Nixon put out the word that the maneuver was just a gimmick and “the issue is closed.” He explained that he was reluctant to debate Humphrey solely because George Wallace would legally have a right to share the platform, and he did not want to give the Alabama racist a boost. It remains a question, however, whether Wallace would have a right to appear if another candidate paid for the air time. Still, a great many voters believe that Nixon should debate this year, just as Johnson should have debated in 1964, and Humphrey last spring.

For the first time, Nixon was encountering serious heckling last week, and much of it dwelt on his refusal to debate. In Akron, he cut short his speech by ten minutes after well-organized demonstrators in the balcony reduced his rally to a shambles. The hecklers, mainly students, shouted “Debate! Debate! Why don’t you debate?” Elsewhere, they toted signs condemning DOUBLETALK or demanding SPECIFICS, NOT GENERALITIES.

The Agnew Issue. Nixon’s most basic error may well turn out to be his selection of Spiro Agnew as a running mate. At Miami Beach, he effusively praised the Maryland Governor’s “courage, character and intellect.” Yet it was transparent that Agnew was chosen in large part because he was acceptable to South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond and others in the party’s Southern wing. Nixon spoke earnesty of Agnew’s campaigning talents and called him “a statesman” who was amply qualified to take over as President.

Given the chance to choose again, Nixon might decide differently—although he would never admit as much. Agnew has proved something of an embarrassment as a campaigner. His “handlers” from the Nixon staff are relieved that there have been no missteps of the “fat Jap” or “Polack” variety for a few weeks. He has long since repented having called Humphrey “soft on Communism.” But lately his political prose has acquired an almost Wallaceite ring. In Jacksonville last week he told a rally: “When little old ladies have to wear tennis shoes so they can outleg the criminals on city streets, there’s something wrong. When arson and larceny and the murder of law-enforcement officials become stylish forms of dissent in the country, then there’s something very wrong with what’s going on.”

Hubert Humphrey, of course, has passed up no opportunity to razz Agnew about any of his gaffes and to remind voters of how close he would be to the presidency in the event of a G.O.P. victory. “Think,” Humphrey demanded of audiences last week. “President Agnew and President LeMay!”

The Wall Street Issue. Another error —perhaps only half an error—was the Nixon camp’s mailing of some 3,000 personal letters to members of the securities industry, suggesting that a Nixon Administration would soften Government policing of its practices and reverse the Johnson Administration’s “heavyhanded bureaucratic regulatory schemes.” Since most securities men were fairly certain that a G.O.P. President would favor less Government regulation anyhow, it was hardly necessary for the candidate to spell out his position.

It was another opening that Humphrey quickly exploited—particularly because of the image it conveyed of the Republican Party as the representative of Wall Street fat cats. “Mr. Nixon,” he said, “would encourage those same speculative excesses that once before plunged this country into chaotic depression and brought vast losses to investors.” In general, Humphrey worked hard to stress the traditional bread-and-butter issue, trying to revive past fears that a Republican Administration would “take it away.” But Nov. 5 is probably too close for any of this to hurt Nixon appreciably. For one thing, it became clear that Hubert Humphrey’s manful efforts to create a semblance of unity in the Democratic Party had failed in at least one notable instance. Minnesota’s Senator Eugene McCarthy demanded that, in exchange for his backing, Humphrey promise to support a change of government in Saigon, reform the draft and overhaul Democratic Party machinery. Replied Humphrey: “I am not prone to start meeting conditions.” While Lyndon Johnson made his first formal speech on the Vice President’s behalf during the week, he was all but overshadowed once again by his party’s dissenters. In California, Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh charged that his fellow Democrats in Washington had accomplished little during the past four years except deceive the public about the Viet Nam war.

Nixon, by contrast, found cause for cheer in the polls. A Harris sampling asking which candidate would inspire the most confidence as President gave Nixon 40%, Humphrey 28%, Wallace 14%. Surveys by the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor showed Nixon the easy winner, with Wallace second and Humphrey third in probable electoral votes. When he heard the tally of the latest Gallup poll (Nixon 44%, Humphrey 29%, Wallace 20%), the Republican candidate bounded to the back of his campaign plane for an ebullient chat with reporters, felt so uncharacteristically talkative that he returned twice more during the flight.